Exercise rehabilitation following intensive care unit discharge for recovery from critical illness: Executive summary of a Cochrane Collaboration systematic review

Skeletal muscle wasting and weakness are major complications of critical illness and underlie the profound physical and functional impairments experienced by survivors after discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). Exercise-based rehabilitation has been shown to be beneficial when delivered during ICU admission. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of exercise rehabilitation initiated after ICU discharge on primary outcomes of functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life. We sought randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and controlled clinical trials comparing an exercise intervention commenced after ICU discharge vs. any other intervention or a control or ‘usual care’ programme in adult survivors of critical illness. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched up to February 2015. Dual, independent screening of results, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed. We included six trials involving 483 patients. Overall quality of evidence for both outcomes was very low. All studies evaluated functional exercise capacity, with three reporting positive effects in favour of the intervention. Only two studies evaluated health-related quality of life and neither reported differences between intervention and control groups. Meta-analyses of data were precluded due to variation in study design, types of interventions, and selection and reporting of outcome measurements. We were unable to determine an overall effect on functional exercise capacity or health-related quality of life of interventions initiated after ICU discharge for survivors of critical illness. Findings from ongoing studies are awaited. Future studies need to address methodological aspects of study design and conduct to enhance rigour, quality, and synthesis.

Two decades of exceptional achievements : does the evidence support nurses to favour Cochrane systematic reviews over other systematic reviews?

Systematic reviews (SRs) are increasingly recognised as the standard approach in summarising health research and influence clinical nursing practice and health care decisions (Coster and Norman, 2009, Grimshaw and Russell, 1993 and Griffiths and Norman, 2005). High quality SRs should have a clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies; an explicit reproducible methodology; a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria; an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies; the assessment of risk of bias; and a systematic presentation and synthesis of the characteristics of findings of the included study (Higgins and Green, 2011). Although SRs are highly regarded and are expected to be rigorous, just as other research, their quality may vary (Choi et al., 2001 and Hoving et al., 2001)...

Informing methods for preparing public health overviews of reviews: a comparison of public health overviews with Cochrane Overviews published between 1999 and 2014

Background: Overviews of systematic reviews (SRs) are useful for public health policy; however there is an absence of Cochrane Overviews covering public health (PH) topics. Objectives: We sought to analyze the methodological approaches used in existing Cochrane Overviews and Protocols for overviews (primarily clinical in nature), and compare these to the methods and approaches used in PH overviews (non-Cochrane). The intent was to identify issues that would be relevant for undertaking Cochrane overviews. Methods: We conducted a descriptive analysis of overviews published between 1999 and 2014. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for Cochrane Protocols for overviews and Cochrane Overviews, and the HealthEvidence.org for PH overviews. The primary characteristics of the overviews and elements of the methodology were extracted and compared. Results: A total of 61 overviews of SRs were included in our analysis; specifically, this included 21 Cochrane Protocols for overviews, 15 Cochrane Overviews, and 27 non-Cochrane PH overviews. Amongst the overviews, the most significant differences are that PH overviews (non-Cochrane) tend to: include earlier and more reviews, greater number of participants, allow lower levels of evidence, use assessment tools other than AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, i.e. a tool for assessing quality of SRs), not assess quality of evidence in reviews, search more databases overall, specify search limits including English-only reviews, and not consider recent primary studies for inclusion. Some of these differences clearly related to quality, however many relate to the nuances of PH interventions. Conclusions: The methodology in Cochrane overviews and PH overviews varies widely. Future PH overviews may benefit from the Cochrane methodology but the Cochrane approach requires modification to accommodate PH research methodology. Additionally, the use of databases that pre-screen and quality assess relevant PH systematic reviews may help expedite the search process.

The Campbell Collaboration

This article describes the development, organization, and operation of the Campbell Collaboration, an international network of academics and practitioners who prepare, maintain, and make accessible authoritative systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions in the fields of social welfare, education, and criminal justice. The Campbell Collaboration is modeled after the successful Cochrane Collaboration, established in 1993 to produce reviews of the evidence relating to the effectiveness of services in the field of health care. The aim of such reviews is to provide practitioners with a summary of the best available empirical evidence on which to base practice decisions.

Mapeamento das evidências do grupo de odontologia da Colaboração Cochrane pra condutas em saúde

Pós-graduação em Bases Gerais da Cirurgia - FMB

Mapeamento das evidências das revisões sistemáticas do Grupo Anestesiologia da Colaboração Cochrane: entendendo seu valor para a prática clínica

Pós-graduação em Anestesiologia - FMB

Can decision making in general surgery be based on evidence? An empirical study of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND: This empirical study analyzes the current status of Cochrane Reviews (CRs) and their strength of recommendation for evidence-based decision making in the field of general surgery. METHODS: Systematic literature search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration's homepage to identify available CRs on surgical topics. Quantitative and qualitative characteristics, utilization, and formulated treatment recommendations were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers. Association of review characteristics with treatment recommendation was analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Ninety-three CRs, including 1,403 primary studies and 246,473 patients, were identified. Mean number of included primary studies per CR was 15.1 (standard deviation [SD] 14.5) including 2,650 (SD 3,340) study patients. Two and a half (SD 8.3) nonrandomized trials were included per analyzed CR. Seventy-two (77%) CRs were published or updated in 2005 or later. Explicit treatment recommendations were given in 45 (48%). Presence of a treatment recommendation was associated with the number of included primary studies and the proportion of randomized studies. Utilization of surgical CRs remained low and showed large inter-country differences. The most surgical CRs were accessed in UK, USA, and Australia, followed by several Western and Eastern European countries. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of available CRs address surgical questions and their current usage is low. Instead of unsystematically increasing the number of surgical CRs it would be far more efficient to focus the review process on relevant surgical questions. Prioritization of CRs needs valid methods which should be developed by the scientific surgical community.

Updated method guidelines for cochrane musculoskeletal group systematic reviews and metaanalyses.

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a study protocol

BACKGROUND The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool has been widely embraced by the systematic review community, but several studies have reported that its reliability is low. We aim to investigate whether training of raters, including objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of this tool. We describe the methods that will be used in this investigation and present an intensive standardized training package for risk of bias assessment that could be used by contributors to the Cochrane Collaboration and other reviewers. METHODS/DESIGN This is a pilot study. We will first perform a systematic literature review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that will be used for risk of bias assessment. Using the identified RCTs, we will then do a randomized experiment, where raters will be allocated to two different training schemes: minimal training and intensive standardized training. We will calculate the chance-corrected weighted Kappa with 95% confidence intervals to quantify within- and between-group Kappa agreement for each of the domains of the risk of bias tool. To calculate between-group Kappa agreement, we will use risk of bias assessments from pairs of raters after resolution of disagreements. Between-group Kappa agreement will quantify the agreement between the risk of bias assessment of raters in the training groups and the risk of bias assessment of experienced raters. To compare agreement of raters under different training conditions, we will calculate differences between Kappa values with 95% confidence intervals. DISCUSSION This study will investigate whether the reliability of the risk of bias tool can be improved by training raters using standardized instructions for risk of bias assessment. One group of inexperienced raters will receive intensive training on risk of bias assessment and the other will receive minimal training. By including a control group with minimal training, we will attempt to mimic what many review authors commonly have to do, that is-conduct risk of bias assessment in RCTs without much formal training or standardized instructions. If our results indicate that an intense standardized training does improve the reliability of the RoB tool, our study is likely to help improve the quality of risk of bias assessments, which is a central component of evidence synthesis.

Clinically indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters (Review)

Background Centers for Disease Control Guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bacteraemia. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. Objectives To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely.